大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 34.44

34.44

疏「諸有情類屬佛異故」者，第三雙結釋。釋成就上來共不共義。上來皆是論文，唯「屬佛異故」一句義引彼論，具云「諸有情類無始時來，種性法爾更相繫屬，或多屬一、或一屬多，故所化生有共不共。不爾，多佛久住世間，各事劬勞實為無益，一佛能益一切生故。」釋曰：「不爾」已下，即彼論文，彈餘師義。然應更有或多屬多、或一屬一，文無者略。又彼論云「無始時來種性法爾」，今雖取彼共不共義，但約結緣，不必法爾。然《攝論》中有三師義：一云皆共，一一皆度一切等故。二云不共，以類本來相屬別故，如慈氏、釋迦同事底沙佛，佛見釋迦所化先熟為之入定，令其七日忘下一足，說偈讚佛超於彌勒九劫先成。豈非別耶？三云有共不共，若一向共，何用多佛？若一向不共，不應歷事多佛願度一切、不應以己所化眾生付囑後佛。今《唯識論》即第三正義，略彈共家，不彈不共。偈中，疏略明四：一者上以因一難於果異，今此具明因果一相。

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Because the classes of sentient beings belong to Buddhas differently": third, it jointly concludes and explains. It explains and accomplishes the above meaning of shared and unshared. All the above is the text of the treatise; only the phrase "because they belong to Buddhas differently" quotes the meaning of that treatise, which fully states: "Classes of sentient beings have, from beginningless time, their dispositions naturally bound to one another; either many belong to one, or one belongs to many; therefore, the beings transformed are shared or unshared. Were it not so, multiple Buddhas dwelling long in the world, each engaging in toil, would truly be without benefit, because one Buddha is able to benefit all beings." Explanation: from "were it not so" onward is the text of that treatise, refuting the views of other masters. However, there should also be "many belonging to many" or "one belonging to one"; that they are absent from the text is an abbreviation. Moreover, that treatise says, "from beginningless time dispositions are naturally so"; now, although we adopt its meaning of shared and unshared, it is merely in terms of forming conditions, not necessarily naturally so. In the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, there are the opinions of three masters: the first says that all are shared, because each and every one saves all, etc.; the second says they are unshared, because the classes originally belonging [to them] are distinct, as when Maitreya and Śākyamuni served Tiṣya Buddha together, and that Buddha, seeing that those to be transformed by Śākyamuni would ripen first, entered samādhi for him, causing him to forget to lower one foot for seven days while praising the Buddha with verses, thus surpassing Maitreya to achieve completion nine kalpas earlier—how could this not be distinct? The third says that there are both shared and unshared: if exclusively shared, what use would there be for multiple Buddhas? If exclusively unshared, one should not serve multiple Buddhas wishing to save all, nor should one entrust the sentient beings one transforms to later Buddhas. Now the Cheng weishi lun follows this third correct view, briefly refuting the proponents of "all shared," but not refuting "unshared." In the verses, the Commentary briefly clarifies four points: first, previously the oneness of cause was used to challenge the difference of fruits; now this fully clarifies the single characteristic of cause and fruit.